Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

I most certainly do not. The fact that I do not believe in the teachings of men is precisely why I am Catholic for, once again, if the claim of the Church is true (and obviously I happen to believe it is) then what I believe is truly by the guidance of the Holy Spirit who guides the church into all truths.

So, you believe The Holy Spirit Guides the CC, and then Catholics interpret what the church teaches?

Whereas Protestants, in general, believe the Holy Spirit Guides individual believers into all truth?

Both Catholics and non-Catholics still have to interpret?

Of course Rick, and I've addressed that already. We all must interpret and therefore, we ultimately are our own popes. Yet divisions persist and multiply and the never-ending cycle continues. Protestants interpret and we get a myriad of opinions. That's where it stops. Catholics interpret and we get a myriad of opinions that defer to a single one that must be true because of the promise of church guidance. We are fallible, sinful creatures, which is exactly why I believe Christ did not leave it up to us, to the point of warning against private interpretation in scripture (imagine that).

And I guess I just disagree that popes are infallible in the regard that Catholicism teaches. And it's also convenient that the Catholic Church chooses those who they want to be infallible, right?

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

I most certainly do not. The fact that I do not believe in the teachings of men is precisely why I am Catholic for, once again, if the claim of the Church is true (and obviously I happen to believe it is) then what I believe is truly by the guidance of the Holy Spirit who guides the church into all truths.

So, you believe The Holy Spirit Guides the CC, and then Catholics interpret what the church teaches?

Whereas Protestants, in general, believe the Holy Spirit Guides individual believers into all truth?

Both Catholics and non-Catholics still have to interpret?

Of course Rick, and I've addressed that already. We all must interpret and therefore, we ultimately are our own popes. Yet divisions persist and multiply and the never-ending cycle continues. Protestants interpret and we get a myriad of opinions. That's where it stops. Catholics interpret and we get a myriad of opinions that defer to a single one that must be true because of the promise of church guidance. We are fallible, sinful creatures, which is exactly why I believe Christ did not leave it up to us, to the point of warning against private interpretation in scripture (imagine that).

And I guess I just disagree that popes are infallible in the regard that Catholicism teaches. And it's also convenient that the Catholic Church chooses those who they want to be infallible, right?

Of course you disagree, otherwise you'd be Catholic. If Christ's promise is true and the Holy Spirit guides the church into all truths then infallibility is part and parcel of that promise, not by the power of fallible men (popes and magisterium included) but by the power of the infallible Holy Spirit. That's how the vicious circle is broken (actually is a non-starter).

Byblos wrote:


Of course you disagree, otherwise you'd be Catholic. If Christ's promise is true and the Holy Spirit guides the church into all truths then infallibility is part and parcel of that promise, not by the power of fallible men (popes and magisterium included) but by the power of the infallible Holy Spirit. That's how the vicious circle is broken (actually is a non-starter).

Or,

Christ's promise is true, and the church that is guided into all truths, is the individual believers, who of course won't know all truth this side of physical death. The same infallible HS, and the same promise apply.

Without all the baggage of the Catholic Church.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:


Of course you disagree, otherwise you'd be Catholic. If Christ's promise is true and the Holy Spirit guides the church into all truths then infallibility is part and parcel of that promise, not by the power of fallible men (popes and magisterium included) but by the power of the infallible Holy Spirit. That's how the vicious circle is broken (actually is a non-starter).

Or,

Christ's promise is true, and the church that is guided into all truths, is the individual believers, who of course won't know all truth this side of physical death. The same infallible HS, and the same promise apply.

Without all the baggage of the Catholic Church.

In the meantime individuals arrive at inconsistent, even contradictory positions that directly affect their salvation and their spiritual life. I choose the 'baggage'.

What if you disagree with a teaching or doctrine of the church?
Like, really disagree.

Storyteller wrote:What if you disagree with a teaching or doctrine of the church?
Like, really disagree.

Then you're wrong, and submit to the infallibility of the church.

Or, leave the church.

Or, stay confused.

But it sounds like you have something specific in mind that you're already disagreeing with. Am I right?

Gee, thanks!

Tell you what though, this is fascinating. And fun.

Helps me think things through.

Depends on what Byblos says about masturbation. Is it wrong?

Storyteller wrote:What if you disagree with a teaching or doctrine of the church?
Like, really disagree.

If it's a doctrine pronounced to be binding on all the faithful then by disagreeing you are effectively separating yourself from the church. Now with this we can get into semantics as to what constitutes disagreement and whether or not one can disagree and yet give intellectual assent to the contrary. In other words, let's say one disagrees with the Marian doctrine or communion of the saints. Can they be a Catholic in good faith by exercising deference to the church knowing the disagreement (and without practicing the doctrine)? I would think yes. You can have doubts about certain things, that's normal. So long as there's a conscious decision to defer to the church in case of conflict.

Storyteller wrote:Depends on what Byblos says about masturbation. Is it wrong?

Not for the reasons you think it's wrong. This is not a Catholic vs. Protestant issue but one relating to the natural law, on which we ALL ought to be in agreement.

Storyteller wrote:Depends on what Byblos says about masturbation. Is it wrong?

I'll leave that subject to him. He's well practiced on that topic.

Is masturbation a sin?

If so, why?

(lol rick, just seen that)

Byblos wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Depends on what Byblos says about masturbation. Is it wrong?

Not for the reasons you think it's wrong. This is not a Catholic vs. Protestant issue but one relating to the natural law, on which we ALL ought to be in agreement.

Expand? Please?

Storyteller wrote:Is masturbation a sin?

I know this is very very long, almost 2 hours but it covers so so much ground with regards to the natural law and sexual ethics. Well worth the time IMO.

Edward Feser: Natural Law and Sexual Ethics

I am not sure where we got the notion that with the HS comes infallible truth or knowledge.
The apostles were not infallible and they made mistakes, as did the next generations.